REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

contracts. They are usually paid the minimum wage for appalling work hours and conditions and struggle to
meet their living costs and send money home. Unions see the solution as increasing unionisation and raising the
minimum wage. Many of them support in principle, the idea of temporary migration, but they would view
Narsey’s suggestion that temporary migrants could be paid less than local workers as a recipe for greater
exploitation and erosion of the minimum wage.
“For decades,
skilled people
needed in PICs
have been sucked
out to Aus/NZ by
their points
system, partly
replaced by
expensive
technical
assistance from
donors and HRD
programmes. The
loss of skills
continues. But
unskilled PIC
workers? No
entry!”
(Waden Narsey,
2005)
Is there any guarantee that people will send remittances home?
The Vanuatu government’s calculation assumes that people will send back a quarter of their salary. Their
research rejects arguments that remittances fall over time. They say transfers continue for 20 years after initial
migration and point out that Mode 4 applies to temporary migration.
How could governments guarantee that people returned home?
The prospect of ‘overstayers’ will be one of the major grounds of opposition. The home governments would be
expected to set up a system of bonding or other guarantees. There have also been suggestions that unions in
host countries might be involved in its administration to bring them onside and help ensure repatriation.
Wouldn’t this scheme make the brain drain from the Pacific Islands even worse?
Many professionals who have enough points to meet the immigration tests will leave anyway. That is seen as
a legitimate choice. It also poses problems for governments of how to recoup the costs of their training, address
the deterioration of local services, and lure them back home. Some have suggested that a more flexible work
visa would encourage skilled migrants to divide their time between the Islands and Australia/NZ.
How would the Pacific Islands try to sell this to the European Community?
They could make temporary entry, combined with training, a non-negotiable baseline for any deal. Objectively,
the European Union should have few objections, because few Pacific people are likely to go to Europe and the
Pacific Islands might be prepared to make significant concessions in return. There is a precedent – the
European Union has an agreement for a quota of Kiribati and Tuvalu seamen in its offshore shipping fleet.
How is the Commission likely to respond?
It certainly won’t want to create a precedent with the Pacific that it would have to extend to other ACP countries.
The Commission sees Mode 4 as a sensitive immigration issue. The negotiating record for Phase 1 shows the
Commission was willing to discuss the issue because it was of ‘mutual interest’ - referring to the desire of
European companies to gain easier entry for their staff. But it downplayed the benefit to the ACP from Mode 4,
saying a substantial share of the gains stay in the host country and: ‘Access to the EC labour market for ACP
individuals would neither result from WTO Mode 4 negotiations, nor from EPA liberalisation’.
How would the Pacific Islands try to sell a similar proposal to Australia and NZ?
They could make it a pre-requisite for any deal under PACER, too, but they would need to secure a major
shift in attitude from both countries. New Zealand has a history of witch-hunts against Pacific Island peoples
when domestic political and economic conditions demand. Australia recently demanded changes to the
TransTasman travel agreement to minimise the back door entry by Pacific Island people and limit their right
to social welfare benefits and pensions. Both governments remain more interested in Asian migrants,
especially those with money, and still seek to minimise the immigration of Pacific Islanders other than
professionals. Forum Secretary General Greg Urwin recently reported signs that positions are softening,
but this remains a hugely sensitive political issue.
Surely this should be dealt with as a development strategy, not a trade issue?
Absolutely, and it can be justified by sound development arguments. Australia and NZ have been sucking
out professional workers from the Pacific for years, without taking any responsibility for the brain drain -
often replacing them with their own ‘technical assistance’ and training programmes funded as ‘aid’. Accepting
a limited number of less-skilled workers can be a win-win option, provided migrant and local workers are
all protected by good labour laws. The number would be small, especially when compared to immigration
from other countries. The Commonwealth Secretariat has been developing proposals along these lines
that deserve careful discussion – but not in the context of trade negotiations where they become crude
Mode 4 commitments and damaging trade-offs are demanded in return.
.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 65